October 1, 2016

"The Democratic Party could have blocked the rise of Donald Trump years ago if it had just listened."

The story of Trump’s amazingly successful movement is also the story of how Democrats turned their backs on their working-class roots and sided with the elites on the crucial economic question of our times: Who would win from globalization, and who would lose? The facts are stark...."

So begins Rex Nutting's MarketWatch column, "How Donald Trump hijacked the Democrats’ best issue/Trump’s populist campaign is fueled by working-class anger about unfair trade, an issue the Democrats need to reclaim."

274 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 274 of 274
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

You are correct, you are the idiot that first brought up 'flyover states'. I gave you too much credit. You can now go and admonish yourself for your own stupidity.

Luke Lea said...

The problem is not "unfair" trade but "free" trade between countries at vastly different levels of economic development, which is unfair to workers in developed countries. When capital is free to invest anywhere in the world, of course American corporations move operations abroad. They are forced to if they want to survive in a competitive marketplace, which means that American workers must compete with workers in poor countries making a small fraction of what they are used to earning.

There is nothing mysterious about this. It is standard textbook economics. The fact that this reality has been obscured in the media is a failing of the economics profession more than anything else. For them "free trade" has long been a talisman regardless of consequences. The result is that the American working-class has been sold down the river.

Original Mike said...

ARM is the Donald Trump of the Althouse commentariat.

Birkel said...

What planes were the Brits flying over flyover country in 1783, "AReasonableMan"?

You area big believer in reading comprehension but display none yourself. Fool.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
ARM is the Donald Trump of the Althouse commentariat.


No, I pay taxes.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Birkel said...
What planes were the Brits flying over flyover country in 1783,


This is an important and valuable question. Since you have asked this important and valuable question so many times already I feel you should really seek the answer to this yourself and then enlighten the rest of us. Because it is really a very important and valuable question. I strongly value your contribution to this forum.

Original Mike said...

The tax story this morning is ridiculous. Who pays taxes they don't owe? Nobody.

Rusty said...

"There are constraints on government power but they all revolve around the ballot box. If people stopped voting for politicians who start stupid wars, spy on their own people and turn the cops into an occupying force we would be a lot better off. "

This from the man who thinks forcing healthcare on people is a good idea. That there should be laws against hate speech, and laughed at 'teabaggers' Of course you think the ballot box is a good idea. You've been stuffing them for decades now.

Birkel said...

And here we have it:

I mention flyover country.
"AReasonableMan" responds that flyover country is silly when discussing The American Revolution.
I respond that talking about The American Revolution is stupid when my comment was about present day America (because airplanes are required for flying over).
"AReasonableMan" cannot admit a mistake and doubles down on stupid, his default position.

Birkel said...

Rusty:

Forcing a tax on people who do not buy terribly expensive, low coverage, health insurance is not the same as forcing healthcare on the population.

You concede too much.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Birkel said...
I mention flyover country.
"AReasonableMan" responds that flyover country is silly when discussing The American Revolution.
I respond that talking about The American Revolution is stupid when my comment was about present day America (because airplanes are required for flying over).


And I respond that you have made a very important and valuable contribution. We all applaud you for this very valuable and important contribution. Who but you would have thought of bring up 'flyover countr' in a discussion about the American Revolution.

I quite clearly admitted my mistake. I fully acknowledge that I thought you were smarter than you actually are.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Rex Nutting?

That's one heck of a name.

What do you think of his name, Professor?

King Cum, I think, is the English translation.

Birkel said...

No, "AReasonableMan", you do not get to tell other people what they may discuss in an Althouse comment section. And when I wrote flyover country you cannot make that mean The American Revolution.

Just admit it was your reading comprehension problem. Everybody will think better of you for admitting obvious error.

(But we both know that will not happen, because you are a fool.)

Lewis Wetzel said...

The same military genius’s who thought the Iraq war was a good idea also think that unregulated militia’s comprised of poorly trained old people represent a serious constraint on US government power.
Hillary Clinton? John Kerry?
Obama was against the Iraq War, but of course Obama thought that Saddam had WMD stockpiles. Obama would have been against the Iraq War if Saddam had had buckets o' nukes.
The liberal narrative on the Iraq War is that the only people who knew that Saddam had no WMD were Saddam and his generals, and Bush and his generals, and it suited both Saddam and his generals and Bush and his generals to lie about it.
Kind of loony.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Terry said...
Hillary Clinton? John Kerry?


Clinton and Kerry are now the standard by which we judge military decision making? Why not just judge the decision on its merits at the time (dubious) and its outcomes (horrific)?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Birkel said...
you do not get to tell other people what they may discuss in an Althouse comment section.


Didn't do this. I said it was odd. It was odd. High levels of free floating resentment in some commenters often results in odd comments unrelated to the main flow of the discussion.

Birkel said...

Clinton and Kerry are the standard for Barack Obama, or he wouldn't have made them his two Secretaries of State.

So, yes, that is the standard for Democrats.

Birkel said...

So if you cannot tell me what I can discuss, and I mention flyover country, you assume I am talking about The American Revolution.

What planes did the Brits have?

Or admit your reading comprehension is lousy.

Birkel said...

Or, better yet, continue as you have and demonstrate your foolishness.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Birkel said...
What planes did the Brits have?


I am glad that you have decided to double down on this question. It is obviously a key unanswered question in our understanding of the Revolutionary war. It is remarkable that more scholars have not brought this up. You are the leading intellectual force of your time with respect to this question.

Original Mike said...

"Didn't do this. I said it was odd. It was odd. High levels of free floating resentment in some commenters often results in odd comments unrelated to the main flow of the discussion."

Says the man who said this:

"It is hard to credit that anyone could argue that geography doesn't play a role in the outcome of conflicts. Russia defeated Germany and France in large part thanks to geography, with an assist from the weather."

during a discussion of the Revotutionary War.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"Clinton and Kerry are now the standard by which we judge military decision making?"
Clinton and Kerry both voted for the war as senators and both served Obama secretary of state.
So, yes, if you are a liberal, both Clinton and Kerry terrifically, magnificently qualified to decide whether or not we go to war. Obama said Hillary was the most qualified person ever to run for president!

"Why not just judge the decision on its merits at the time (dubious)"
Clinton and Kerry thought the Iraq War would be a great thing!
"and its outcomes (horrific)?"
Versus hunky-dory if Saddam was still there? Or his evil, insane kids were running the place?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Birkel said...
yes, that is the standard for Democrats.


Another non sequitur. The discussion was about the wisdom and/or practicality of believing that unregulated militias represent a serious constraint on government. I can't recall either Clinton or Kerry advocating this position. You have a lot of free floating resentment that causes you to make odd comments, unrelated to the discussion at hand.

Birkel said...

If one person mentions flyover country and the other responds with comments about colonial Pennsylvania, it is obviously the fault of the first person for confusing the tiny intellect of the second person with a common term.

QED

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
during a discussion of the Revotutionary War.


So it is not reasonable to bring up the role of geography in the outcome of other military conflicts in a discussion on the role of geography in the outcome of a military conflict? This is really going to screw the careers of a lot of historians.

Original Mike said...

ARM, if you can point to where Roughcoat made the general point that geography is unimportant in war, you have a point.

The floor is yours.

Birkel said...

That was the discussion you were having with nobody else. Do try to keep up. We are all, each of us, actively mocking you.

That is the sum of our efforts.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Birkel said...
If one person mentions flyover country


A classic resentful non sequitur. I have admitted that I failed to take account of your unique pathology. I should have recognized immediately that I was dealing with someone who can only respond emotionally rather attempt to discern the facts.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
ARM, if you can point to where Roughcoat made the general point that geography is unimportant in war, you have a point.


So we are limited in a discussion to Roughcast's limited understanding of that problem? We cannot consider other facts that might provide insight into a particular claim? If something is true in one case, as you apparently concede, then it is irrelevant in another?

Original Mike said...

OK, Donald.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Birkel said...
We are all, each of us, actively mocking you.


You voted for George Bush, you thought the Iraq war was a good idea and you believe that old men with a few guns are a serious constraint on government power, just like the Revolutionary war. There is insufficient mockery in this world to fully cover that set of beliefs.

Birkel said...

Note again the serious point that is dismissed by "AReasonableMan". All it would take is a certain percentage of Americans to quit helping their oppressors oppress them and the military would be below optimum performance.

To acknowledge otherwise would require "AReasonableMan" reconsider his faith and almost masturbatory excitement for the exercise of power he so lustily fantasizes will happen.

"AReasonableMan" is a fool.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Birkel said...
masturbatory excitement for the exercise of power he so lustily fantasizes will happen


Pure resentful emotional projection masquerading as thought.

In reality, a world you are apparently completely unfamiliar with, I routinely object to the excesses of government power. Both the killing of citizens and our surveillance state.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

You are a very bitter man Bickel. I am sorry that life has turned out so badly for you.

Birkel said...

Odd that your response to mockery is to offer non sequitur and emotional backlash. When you are projecting your impotence online do you feel excitement?

You get to change the subject at will. You get to pretend you can tell others what they may discuss.

And all of us laugh at you, fool.

Birkel said...

"AReasonableMan" summarized:

I object to the inevitable expansion of government power required by pursuit of the goals I do prefer, like socialized medicine and complete federal control of the economy. I am unable to understand cause and effect, said the fool, "AReasonableMan".

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Birkel said...
'quit helping their oppressors oppress them'


This is apparently your core belief, that you are an oppressed victim. This belief apparently animates your anger. This is emotional not rational. Not notably different to inner city blacks, who believe much the same thing. Things will probably get better if you stop blaming others for your problems.

Birkel said...

"AReasonableMan": The U.S. military would put down any citizen revolt.

Me: That is a hypothetical involving the oppression of people who would not stand for that oppression. People would passively resist and the means by which the country supplies itself would be interrupted.

"AReasonableMan": How dare you imagine oppression in the scenario I described in which the military is used to oppress people. You must have anger issues because you took my hypothetical seriously.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

In reality I said that I doubt that any significant citizen revolt is even possible now, thanks to your Bush/Cheney surveillance state. I also pointed out that the belief that the cops or the military would disobey orders to suppress a revolt is at odds with the actual history of these events in the US. In the past they respected whoever was giving them a pay check. I doubt that human nature has changed that much.

This - 'quit helping their oppressors oppress them' - is the key to your beliefs and your anger. You genuinely believe that you are oppressed. You live in one of the richest democracies that has ever existed in the history of the planet and yet you are oppressed. It is nonsense on stilts. Democracies are an imperfect reflection of the will of the people and no one gets their own way all the time, but to frame this as oppression is ridiculous. Furthermore, you are free to the leave the country and live in a wide range of countries that won't 'oppress' you. Actual oppressive regimes stop their actual oppressed citizens from leaving the country.

Birkel said...

Apologies for giving your hypothetical undeserved consideration, "AReasonableMan". I should have known better than to think you meant anything you wrote to be taken at face value.

That is why flyover country could mean The American Revolution in your mind.

That, and you are a fool.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

A fool believes he is oppressed when no oppression exists.

Birkel said...

Next time you offer a hypothetical, be more clear that we should not think about it.

Fool.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

A fool believes he is oppressed when no oppression exists.

Birkel said...

That is cute. In your hypothetical many people were oppressed. And you are orgasmic about that idea.

But recognizing the oppression (and your glee at the idea) of a hypothetical means I believe in current, non-hypothetical, oppression in your fevered brain.

You are foolish.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

A fool believes he is oppressed when no oppression exists.

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkel said...

Do you want to share any further hypotheticals you wish nobody to take seriously, "AReasonableMan"?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

The sad thing about pedants is that they are often reasonably intelligent people. Their lives are blighted by their inability to grasp the nuances of a given discussion, instead fixating on their own obsessions. These people are often conspiracy theorists, who come to believe that they are 'oppressed'.

Birkel said...

Yes, "AReasonableMan", but nobody here is going sympathize with your pathology because you are an insufferable jackass.

Rusty said...

"AReasonableMan": The U.S. military would put down any citizen revolt.

Well. No not the United States Military. That would be illegal under the Posse Comitatus act.
The president could by pass the governors and impress the National Guard as Eisenhower did.But then you run the risk of National Guard members refusing to fire on their neighbors. Which would be an illegal order anyway. And then you run the risk of a governor or two simply refusing to release that states national guard.So no. The United States Army, Air Force or Navy would not take to the streets to suppress a civil revolution. No. The more likely scenario would be the highly militarized federal agencies.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

More projection. As a victim of 'oppression' you naturally find it hard to relate to people with views different than your own. You lash out. I understand. We all do.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Rusty said...
No not the United States Military. That would be illegal under the Posse Comitatus act.
The president could by pass the governors and impress the National Guard as Eisenhower did.


Interesting that you failed to mention the much more recent efforts of Bush/Cheney to undermine this:

"In 2006, Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). On September 26, 2006, President George W. Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition. These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.[7]

Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." It provided that:

The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."

Birkel said...

The same John Warner who endorsed Hillary Clinton?

Meanwhile, as a victim of hypothetical oppression from a guy who thinks flyover country existed during The American Revolution, I am curious why you project so much. You are a fool. But why must you be such a boring poor sport? Your handlers should train you better.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

A fool believes he is oppressed when no oppression exists.

Birkel said...

Do you have any further hypotheticals?

Fabi said...

Still no link or citation for ARM's claim about 80% of our population living in the countryside during the Revolutionary War. It's been 24 hours -- what are you waiting for?

Jon Ericson said...

Here, Ari, a new shovel. My gift to you.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Fabi said...
Still no link or citation for ARM's claim about 80% of our population living in the countryside during the Revolutionary War. It's been 24 hours -- what are you waiting for?


I am waiting for you to develop the brain power necessary to use Google. I guess it is going to be a long wait for both of us.

Birkel said...

Unsupported claims, poor argumentation, misattributions, malformed hypothetical...

"AReasonableMan" has displayed his reasonableness in all its glory.

"AReasonableMan" is a fool.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

A fool believes he is oppressed when no oppression exists.

Birkel said...

If only you had a single perceivable point, you fool.

Rusty said...

Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said...
"No not the United States Military. That would be illegal under the Posse Comitatus act.
The president could by pass the governors and impress the National Guard as Eisenhower did.

Interesting that you failed to mention the much more recent efforts of Bush/Cheney to undermine this:"

I didn't mention it because I never read it. Thank you for posting it.

Now this.

AReasonableMan said...
"A fool believes he is oppressed when no oppression exists."

"Said the gun control advocate. Gun owners aren't oppressing you."

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

A fool believes he is oppressed when no oppression exists.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Rusty said...
Gun owners aren't oppressing you.


Never claimed they were.

Birkel said...

As the leading internet authority on being a fool, I can only accept that you are correct. Why, "AReasonableMan", do you think you are oppressed?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

A fool believes he is oppressed when no oppression exists.

Rusty said...

Never claimed they were.

?!!! Sure. Whatever.

Birkel said...

As you are a fool, I will take your word, "AReasonableMan". Now tell me again how you weren't responding to me when you quoted me.

That one will never get old.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

A fool believes he is oppressed when no oppression exists.

Birkel said...

There is nothing more that you need write, as a professed fool, that anybody reading here will not believe about what a fool believes, if you write it.

You can imagine what you like, fool.

Tell me the one about how you were not responding to me, in which you quoted me. I like that story.

Fool.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

A fool believes he is oppressed when no oppression exists.

Birkel said...

We have established that you are a fool. That is asked and answered.

Now riddle me how you quoted me but were not responding to me.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

A fool believes he is oppressed when no oppression exists.

Birkel said...

There is no excuse for you.

But you have chosen your team and would denigrate anybody who is on the other team.

You are a sad individual.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 274 of 274   Newer› Newest»